Why were 14 books ripped out of the King James Bible in 1885?

So, what? He OBE'd from his body in order to get a better look at how the crucifixion was being performed? Maybe he liked the cinematic effect of
floating around, trying out a few action shots in his head...

I really don't get how this works.

edit on 30-5-2012 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

It was a revelation, a vision.

and yes NOTurTypical I'm aware of this..

Many of the Gnostic texts are written from meetings with "beings" and "Christ" after his crucifixion.
There were groups of people who had drastically different beliefs based on the teachings of Christ and they were persecuted. Not much is talked about
in the biblical texts when it comes to the teachings Christ gave AFTER his crucifixion but he stayed with them(the apostles) for a number of years,
appearing to them various times after his crucifixion.

The gnostics relationship with Christ was based on spiritual encounters and not with the physical Jesus therefore that is how they speak of him. They
took his teachings to the extreme and were persecuted for this. You can peruse the bible yourself for his very own claims that he often spoke more
openly with his disciples and that there was a "hidden" teaching that was not expressed to the public.

This itself is the collection of books that has been excluded, because it was so far away from the worldly teachings that made it easy to control
people and those who were in power had no use of those texts because of their very contents ...

If you want to read the books ripped from the King James Bible, all you gotta do is find any Catholic version of the Bible. I recommend the Douay
Rheims translation although I guess a New American Bible would do.

The books were removed because they reinforced Catholic teachings. It always puzzled me about who gave them the authority to remove books during the
protestant revolt.

I was going to say that in the Bible that I read, the books are all there.
And I read The American Bible.

If what you say is true, then this implies that Jesus did not truly die...he only APPEARED to do so. This lends credence to the "escape to France
with pregnant wife" story.

Out of curiosity, where did these events in the Gnostic Gospels supposedly take place?

edit on 30-5-2012 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason
given)

That misses the point, it wasn't about him not dying.. the revelation was about clarifying the teachings that Christ had previously given them about
the nature of the spirit and the flesh.

It had nothing to do with escaping anywhere, surviving or having kids.. it was about demonstrating to the apostles what he had been referring to when
he spoke about the true nature of man.

As it was written, when Peter said to Jesus, no one is looking at you, let us flee... and Jesus told him "I have told you, 'Leave the blind
alone!'. And you, see how they do not know what they are saying."

You have no idea about the Bible, the original bible had far more books than what the old and then the current new testaments had and have.

The bible has been the most PERFECT tool of mind control. But the real truth lies in the books that are hidden and are sitting way under the Vatican
and under the house of commons in England. I heard there are only six copies of the original bible with all its 94 (YES 94) books intact.

Parts of the original bible have actual words from Lucifer in there and were removed and place in safe keeping a long time ago. Everything has been
manipulated to control the masses and not for the purpose of good!!!

"When the Roman Church first became aware that the central theme of Buddhism was re-incarnation the similar beliefs in the Roman Church were
removed"

Do you have any proof for this statement?
Reincarnation has never been in the OTor the NT.

Yes reincarnation is part of the theology, and much of it can still be found in the gnostic scriptures.
which are the books removed from the bible.. therefore it was removed.
but unlike buddhism, being reincarnated into animals was not part of it...

I recall reading The Aquarian Gospel of Jesus The Christ (which was produced by automatic writing by a dentist) and in that book, when Jesus meets the
indian masters he argues with the leader/high priest about this very thing (being born into animals etc) .. and because of his deeper understanding he
receives their highest title/teachings ... then I believe he went to Egypt to be taught by those high priests etc in their secret teachings.
In the Aquarian Gospel, Jesus visits many places (in his missing years) and he is taught by each places "holy leaders" and receives their highest
honors/teachings. etc

My favorite part in the Apocrypha is when Jesus goes to hell and Hades shutters too pieces. Hades blaming Satan for bringing a "man" of such power to
Hades. And of course Jesus taking everyone out from hell and with Him. I find the Apocrypha an amazing read, and it gives me hope and faith.

Imo, It was removed for reasons so people would not know what really happened. I believe we have been set free already and man does not want us to
know. I have my copy and many Christians think I am foolish for having it. There is nothing wrong with the books, but one do think it's extremely far
fetched when you start to read it. Doubt will set in at certain times as we were not raised with these books. Follow your instinct with faith and He
will stand with you. Nothing that a prayer can't fix to help you spiritually.

There are so many great books in there. It is simply an awesome read.

It has been removed to dumb people down, to follow the way of man that corrupts the Word of our Creator.

Do you know why the apocrypha of Peter is heretical? Because it contradicts the Garden of Gathsemane. Gnostic books say Jesus was not even in the
physical, but a spirit. Good luck driving nails through a spirits hands and feet, or even beating one or scourging it. Jesus was afraid, sweating
blood under great stress and he prayed to have the cup removed from him if it were possible. Not the act of someone who would be laughing at himself
being nailed to the cross. That is almost on the same level of absurdity as the Dajjal (Antichrist) of Islam cutting a boy in half and then healing
him and then the boy jumping up and laughing while saying "you are the dajjal!", in which we know in reality the boy would be kissing his ass for
saving his life and would probably believe he really was Jesus.

Do you know why the apocrypha of Peter is heretical? Because it contradicts the Garden of Gathsemane. Gnostic books say Jesus was not even in the
physical, but a spirit. Good luck driving nails through a spirits hands and feet, or even beating one or scourging it. Jesus was afraid, sweating
blood under great stress and he prayed to have the cup removed from him if it were possible. Not the act of someone who would be laughing at himself
being nailed to the cross. That is almost on the same level of absurdity as the Dajjal (Antichrist) of Islam cutting a boy in half and then healing
him and then the boy jumping up and laughing while saying "you are the dajjal!", in which we know in reality the boy would be kissing his ass for
saving his life and would probably believe he really was Jesus.

I would be interested in reading that.. where can I find it saying that he was never physical.

You're kidding right? Gnostics believed in "Doeticism". They taught everything material was evil, the spirit world was good. They taught angelic
entities were our intermediaries to God. That Jesus never was really here in the flesh. They denied a ressurection, thats why the Gnostic
manuscripts scrubbed Mark chapter 16. They believed Jesus was this ethereal ghost-like figure that wasnt really flesh. That He didnt litterally die
on the cross.

Their books werent merely extrabiblical, they were antibiblical. Just google. "Doeticism".

You're kidding right? Gnostics believed in "Doeticism". They taught everything material was evil, the spirit world was good. They taught angelic
entities were our intermediaries to God. That Jesus never was really here in the flesh. They denied a ressurection, thats why the Gnostic
manuscripts scrubbed Mark chapter 16. They believed Jesus was this ethereal ghost-like figure that wasnt really flesh. That He didnt litterally die
on the cross.

Their books werent merely extrabiblical, they were antibiblical. Just google. "Doeticism".

I've read the entire nag hammadi library several times and other lesser known texts and that isn't the impression I get from reading it.

and no where in there have I read that Jesus wasn't ever a flesh and blood person .. these are misunderstandings/misinterpretations of the text IMO,
..

They believe that this cosmos was created in ignorance by Yaltabaoth, who was born to God's counterpart, and that Christ is the only begotten son
(meaning of the father) therefore making them "brothers" so-to-speak and that this place is akin to a shadow; Yaltabaoth believed himself to be God
erroneously and was corrected but Yalta didn't seem to care and continued trying to steal back the power, which he was tricked into giving it to
us.

I disagree with your interpretation of the texts as well as the perceptions derived from those interpretations.
Much like the Gnostics at the time, I feel that the texts are highly misunderstood.

The truth is, it's all fun to talk about but no one really knows.. it's a "faith" thing..
With that being said.. you could be correct in your interpretation, I've read what people have to say about the texts, but from my perspective they
misunderstand many of the key texts. They draw erroneous conclusions based on biased viewpoints, that it doesn't make sense to them so it must be
wrong, or that it says "this" in one place and seemingly contradicts itself in another which is why I find it requires a lot more research before
one makes up their mind about what the texts are saying.

But like I was saying, I'd like to see which particular texts give you personally that impression, not what other people have written about it.

1.
Taking away is only the second half of a whole thought. Much of what I cover later on deals with the chance of "adding to" being mistaken, now, for
taking away.
2. When this book was written, it was on it's own. So, even contextually, the subject of what is being added and taken away from is specifically
about Revelation.
3. Furthermore, in the Greek, the word for Book, there, is Biblion:

The Church View:
In the Catholic Church the version used is the Douay-Rheims Bible consisting of 73 books. In the Protestant church only the 66 books
approved by the Archbishop of Canterbury in 1885, which today is known as the Authorized King James Bible, are used. No other books, neither the
Apocrypha, which was included in the original King James Bible, nor the 22 books mentioned or quoted in the King James Bible, are considered
inspired.

The Bible View:
There was no specific list or accounting of all the books that made up the Bible until the commission of the first Bible by the Emperor
Constantine in the 4th Century AD. The books that make up the Authorized King James Bible were chosen by men, not divine forces. The language of
the King James Bible is obscure and limited.

Question / Issue
The Catholic Bible has more books than the Protestant Bible. Most Catholics believe that Christians took books out of the Bible, and most Christians
believe that the Catholics added books to the Bible. Who is right???

Answer / Solution

Neither. The Bible of Protestant Christianity contained 80 books up until 1885, when the British and Foreign Bible Society arbitrarily excluded the
Apocrypha from the 1611 King James Bible. The Catholics DID NOT add books to the Bible; in fact, they removed two of the apocryphal books, II Esdras
and The Prayer of Manasseh from their bible. The Apocrypha WAS part of the original Septuagint though NEVER considered scripture by the Jews, and
subsequently by modern Protestant Christianity. To make matters more confusing, the early church through the Council of Carthage in AD 406 considered
the Apocrypha as scripture. Also, do not confuse subsequent church councils extending into the 16th century as "official" decrees of the Christian
chuch; this is related more to Catholic church history than Christian church history..

Look, there's been the books of the Bible, and there's been commentary on those books, since the first one was written. Technically throwing out
the books by the Church Fathers makes this asininely difficult to point out the overwhelming unity in what a Christian was to be about. BUT: the
church fathers, for the most part, were 2nd through 4th generation removed. Books written after them are even further removed. And some of these
books are just verse compilations("sayings"), set up in the same way that Proverbs is, but with the benefit of being able to trace it to the
original source. This accounts for the bulk of the NT parts in the "800 books". When adding in books that aren't even close to the timeline that
the original books were written, the new information is so far removed from the era that it's likely false information. For the most part,
historians want the earliest source material.

Now for missing time between the OT and NT (about 400 years):
Throwing out at least the 1st book of Maccabees gets rid of 2 things: the context of why there were Pharisees and Sadducees in Christ's time, and the
history of the 3rd Kingdom to interfere with Israel since Nebuchadnezzar. (Oh, and this is where Hanukkah comes from, too.) So it is some needed
history. But the reason it was thrown out was that it was in Greek: basically, thrown out because it was Greek writing without evidence of a Hebrew
manuscript. This goes back again to the issue of these books not being the earliest source material for the OT. Daniel was nearly thrown out, due to
not being originally in only Hebrew--part of the book is in Aramaic.

Your choice... a simple Google search of "Gnosticism/Doeticism" will reveal the same information I have already stated here.

I'm familiar with the academic view of the texts...

For one thing you're spelling Doeticism incorrectly.. it's Docetism which I'm familiar with ... which is just one interpretation of the texts..

I find it funny that you would rather use other peoples words to describe your position instead of having a genuine opinion of your own about what the
scriptures represent.... that was my point in asking which texts gave YOU that impression but from our conversation I can tell that you've formed
your beliefs based upon other peoples interpretations.

You haven't revealed ANY information, that's what I'm asking for but you keep bringing up docetism without supplying any texts that you feel
represent that belief, as I've stated ... I've read the entire nag hammadi library several times and that isn't the impression I get from reading
the texts.

What about the Gospel of Jesus? The Gospel of Sarah? The Gospel of Mary Magdelene?

There are many gospels missing, once you accept that not only was Jesus a mortal prophet, but he also had a family. Imagine, an entire family tree
passing down generation after generation of teachings...

That alone would be more realistic than the doctrine the Church upholds today.

edit on 30-5-2012 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason
given)

And to make matters even more " hairy" if there is indeed a bloodline, who is related and who knows? The royal family? Just some random family? Lol

The Above Top Secret Web site is a wholly owned social content community of The Above Network, LLC.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.